CORRESPONDENCE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 8658, 22 October 1896, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

, THE SHINGLE QUESTION. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I think “ Gentle Reader ” ought to state his authorities, and where they can be found, as I do. I do riot deny the accumulation on the Washdyke Beach. The only point in dispute about it is, where it came from. I challenged him to get a sample of it to compare it with the shingle at Timaru, but he has not done so. i think that ought to have settled that point. He recommends mb to “ try back.” I have done so with the following results : limaru Herald, November.4th, 1881, MrGbodall in reply to Messrs O’Connor and Austin, said : “It was considered in the first place that the amount of shingle would never injure the works after they had proceeded out to deep water, and that if it did means would be devised to take away the shingle so economically that the annual charge on the Harbour Board would be within reasonable limits.” This shows that shingle shifting was contemplated from the commencement. \ . Messrs Ussher and, Hay’s report, Timaru Herald, January 18th. 1894: “In support of this plan of dealing with the shingle arid the proposed accessory works, it has been urged, by the Board in writing, or by the chairman (Mr Stuart) and officials in our interviews with them, .that the proposed works are essential foEthe and safety of the harbour, and to provide facilities for dealing with the shingle', that as the shingle can only be effectually dealt with between high and : low water, the proposed extension of the mole is neces-ary to control the shingle, when the low to high water fade of the shingle is allowed to advance opposite the selected station fbrthfe

February 28th, 1894, the chairman (Mr s tuart)—“ The Board he thought should provide a safeguard They

ought to get rid of the disability so as to be free to act when it became necessary. He did not think there would be any danger of the shingle going round the work for four or five years yet.” Timaru Herald , December 20th, 1894, the chairman (Mr Stuart) says;—“To quote from my report of 21st June 1893, ‘as guardiahs'of this harbour it behoves this Board to exercise the ordinary foresight of being armed for probable emergencies, and certainly the unsuitableness of the new tug dredge is one of them. In such a case it wili be unpardonable on our part to have no alternative ready The Timaru

Harbour Board .Reclamation Bill. . . , . secures the handy landward removal. . . . of the surplus shingle.”

And speaking of the extension“ In the words of oar application its construction will enable the seaward removal of the shingle to become practicable with our present appliances.” The italics are his.

I will now return to the present time, and mention what has happened in other places situated as we are. Oamaru is troubled with the shingle the same as we are, only in a very small degree, and there it does not go past. They tried. I believe, t 6 hire our dredge, and they are fixing a shingle pump to their own dredge. At New Plymouth, although the material is more likely, I understand, to be drifted across, it did not drift across, but piled up at the end of the mole until it was dry at low water for a considerable distance, and came inside sufficiently to prevent vessels getting to the wharf, the vessels having to go round the bank to get in. If there had been a north mole, as there is here, the entrance would have been completely blocked and the harbour ruined. None of the sand went across to the north beach there. If it does not go across at Oamaru or New Plymouth why should it here ? I am, etc., Reader.